Even More Than Single Life, This Is About Authenticity and Choice

My passion is single life. I love to live it, write about it, bust myths, and - I hope - provide a bit of enlightenment. But there is something even more fundamental at the core of my writings, and that's the wish that we can all choose to live the life that, to each of us as an individual, is most meaningful and authentic.

I was moved to note this because of a comment that was left on this recent post. One of the readers writing under the name Anonymous (there are several) said this:

"I do get confused when people talk about being single as a state in which one has ‘friendships' but not ‘relationships' --- are people here confusing being single with being celibate? For me, not being celibate isn't about hook-ups, it's about relationships that are...romantic and intimate and sharing. Long ago I realized that I didn't want to be married but to deny myself this other part of me --- not going to happen and I don't feel like I'm a fraud as a single for admitting it."

If any readers of this blog or of any of my other writings have felt reluctant to acknowledge an important part of themselves because of what they read, I apologize. That is exactly the opposite of my intentions. When you sense something like that is happening, please continue to call me on it.

I do, deliberately, write disproportionately about aspects of single life - and life in general - that are especially likely to be stigmatized. So Anonymous is probably correct in suggesting that I talk about singles who have friendships but not romantic relationships more often than I talk about singles who have both. I think that if you have romantic relationships, you are less likely to be put on the defensive. Other people who view the world in conventional ways see you and perhaps think to themselves - well, s/he's single, but at least s/he's trying to get married.

I had great fun writing Singled Out, but hardly more so than when coming up with chapter titles and subtitles. Take, for example, the chapters on single women and single men:

• Myth #5. Attention Single Women:Your work won't love you back and your eggs will dry up. Also, you don't get any and you're promiscuous.

• Myth #6. Attention Single Men:You are horny, slovenly, and irresponsible, and you are the scary criminals. Or, you are sexy, fastidious, frivolous, and gay.

The point of those titles was this: No matter what you do as a single person, no matter how you live your life, there is a caricature or stereotype out there that can be used to undermine you. So don't live your life based on what you think will attract the approval, acceptance, and well-wishes of others. Those who practice singlism unabashedly will always find you wanting; they will see you as bogged down with "issues" until the day you marry. (On the other hand, those who really care about you and who are not intractable practitioners of singlism will probably treat you fairly regardless of whether you are single or coupled or not exactly either one, and regardless of whether they are single or coupled or something else.)

I like to hear from readers about what I'm missing. More than once, a comment was posted saying that I did not acknowledge involuntary celibacy often enough. So I included the topic in this post about sex and the single person. Others asked that I discuss asexuality, so I did that here. On the other hand, I'm probably not going to be persuaded to write the standard normal stuff. So, you won't find a whole lot here about the downsides of single life, or about the joys of marriage, because you can find those things, well, just about everywhere. They are part of the conventional wisdom. That's not to say that there are no downsides to living single (there are) or no joys to marriage (there are those, too). It's just too pedestrian and boring to write entire essays saying so.

Bottom line: My most basic wish for all of you is that you can acknowledge to yourself how you would most like to lead your life, and then pursue that path that is most meaningful to you. Secondarily, if you are up for it, I hope you will admit to the life that works for you. The latter is more difficult, because too many people are stuck in mental ruts when it comes to thinking about the ways to live a full and meaningful life, and they will let their disapproval show. But if you can stand up for your life choices, especially when they are not the most conventional ones, then you will have stood up for everyone else who thought they were alone and could not say (for example) that they like their single life just fine.

[I also want to mention here that I'm way behind on addressing topics that have been suggested to me or that I promised to come back to. Feel free to send me follow-up nudges if you are getting tired of waiting.]

How apropos! Too often public discourse categorizes life and people in a binary, true/false fashion. But it seems more useful to say that each person represents a point somewhere on a pretty broad spectrum of life preferences.

The time dimension matters too. I think most hetero guys would agree, for example, that there are times in life when one doesn't want or need any romantic or sexual partnering in one's life--finishing up a college honor's thesis, weeks long mountain climbs, training for a demanding medical residency, starting a business, etc. etc. In these unique and important situations, it's not "weird" to have little or no interest in romantic/sexual matters for very long periods of time. It's simply "appropriate."

I'd just add to Bella's post, one could argue that each person owes it to human civilization to be authentic. Because when your life is in harmony with who you are, you'll be doing your best work, for lack of a better term.

Just in case any single folk count the phenomenon of "involuntary celibacy" in the minus column as they regard their life, please, make room for us marrieds to put tickmarks on that complaint category as well. In fact, make a lot of room.

I think this post, especially the "Bottom Line" at the end, really gets to the heart of the matter. These conventions or expectations about what we should do and what we should desire in life can be insidious. If we allow them to, these pervasive messages can make us doubt our choices, our worthiness, and the most fundamental parts of our being. There are all kinds of stale assumptions out there that often go unchallenged--whether about marital status, parenthood, age, occupation, and on and on. This post ties in with some of the others on the PT site I have read about introversion; people who may be reserved in their manner or who enjoy solitude are viewed as misfits and shirkers. I applaud you for taking a stand against stereotyping. It makes the world a more interesting and welcoming place.

It's about making the best choice, so you can do your best and be your best. Perhaps some people will think this is too idealistic, but I believe in vocations and callings, and being single can be part of that.

I also believe (again perhaps too idealistically) that life is just full of possibilities, an endless and rich tapestry. So I don't like it at all when people try to limit the possibilities by disparaging certain choices.

I hadn't seen the comment referred to in this post, but I agree with it 100%. I don't mean to insinuate Dr. Depaulo is alienating anyone. But I can relate to being in a romantic relationship and still considering myself single. The law would: if you're not married, you're single. I am not married. I don't live with the person; we aren't financially obligated to one another in any way. But we both enjoy what the other has to offer: physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. And that's enough, for now. When we're ready to move on, we can move on. Maybe we'll never be ready. It is both deep commitment and sweet freedom to choose being together over being alone. It's one of the best parts of being single.

I think the original comment re: "why must single mean celibate on this blog" stemmed from a discussion about how single people sometimes feel called upon to justify their unmarried status by saying things like, "I was engaged once," or "I almost got married," or "I have/had a long-term partner," etc. From the anti-singlism POV one might ask the question, "why isn't it OK just to be single, no qualifiers?"

I used to use this defensive, qualifying tactic myself, until I realized that the only reason I was saying it was because I didn't want people to think I was weird/damaged/pathological regarding relationships. I wanted them to know that my being single was a choice. I assumed (probably rightly, based on what was happening in the conversations) that the listener was judging me because I wasn't in a traditional marriage.

Now I just avoid people/situations if I get the vibe that that kind of judgment is going on. I don't think I should have to justify my choices regarding dating, mating, and procreating. As I see it, this blog isn't about being against romantic relationship, it's about being (as the entry's title says) authentically in relationship. It's hard to be "authentically in relationship" around people who deem only legally sanctioned, romantic, heterosexual couples as legitimate and every other type of relationship as expendable, frivolous, transitory, or weird/damaged/pathological.

More binary Married==Good, Single==Immature thinking in the current Newsweek column by George Will obnoxiously titled "The Basement Boys - The making of modern immaturity."http://www.newsweek.com/id/234248

Along with the things he doesn't approve of like Drinking Beer, Dave & Busters, playing Electronic Games - all things that "exemplify youth not as a stage of life but as a perpetual refuge from adulthood" - he includes the will-not-die stereotype that equates marriage with maturity by saying "the percentage of men reaching age 40 without marrying increased from 6 to 16.5."

I don't know where the statistic specifically came from, but why would you include this in this article? The implication of course is that not getting married supports his thesis that men these days are more immature.

And in his closing he decries Tiger Woods "misadventures" as basically representative of this generation's immaturity. But wait, this is a married man. Say what?

Hello! Read and loved your book, and just discovered this blog. I'll be reading past entries in the next few days, but wanted to respond to: "When you sense something like that is happening, please continue to call me on it."

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, and it is a minor issue, but... Several times you mention in your book that one can be a single woman who lives in a house, a real house, not a condo or apartment, and not every single woman owns cats. I understand what you're saying, but as a condo-dwelling cat owner, I feel as though you're saying there's something wrong with living in a condo and owning cats. It feels as though you're perpetuating the stereotypes of the Crazy Cat Lady, and frankly, I get that enough from the matrimania people.

Like I said, it's just a minor problem, but one that's been niggling me ever since I read the book.

Wow, thank you for the quick response! That blog post adds a lot of insight to what you're saying, and I now see your point of view, and agree with many of the comments on that post. (After I posted my comment, I thought I'd regret not reading the entire blog before posting... alas!)

Now that I think about it... I've always loved both dogs and cats. In my situation, dogs aren't really an option. I had two rescue cats for a while, living on my own, but when they died, I wasn't really desperate to replace them. After a while, my friends and family started pressuring me to adopt another pair of kitties. I did adopt two cats, and I'm not sorry I did, but I doubt I'd've done it without the pressure.

So, in a way, I wonder if I am succumbing to societal pressure... if I'm not going to be married, I'd damned well better get some pets!